Is Roe v Wade Finally At Deaths Door?

[B-Man]

 

 

Information:

 

 Can Congress resurrect Roe if it’s overturned? Well, it could try.

Democrats in Congress are calling on their colleagues to “codify Roe” in federal law. The Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) in June 2021 would do just that. Here’s what you need to know. . . .

 

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came before the Supreme Court, even the liberal justices noted the awkwardness of arguing over whether hamburger meat crossing state lines meant a restaurant such as Ollie’s BBQ in Alabama had to allow Black patrons to sit at the counter, or whether an Atlanta hotel near an interstate highway had to allow Black guests because its travelers moved between states. Still, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Civil Rights Act, giving the green light to Congress to use its commerce power to enforce civil rights.

 

This time around, Congress would again define access to abortion as a case of interstate commerce. People travel across state lines to procure abortion services; medical equipment that provide abortions all moves in interstate commerce; and licensing, training and education for abortion providers all involve interstate travel and commerce. Proponents hope that by codifying Roe in this way, a new federal law guaranteeing the right to abortion would survive the Supreme Court’s inevitable review.

 

But the Supreme Court has narrowed Congress’s commerce power significantly since the mid-1990s. . . .

 

It’s possible that the Supreme Court would choose to uphold a WHPA, if passed and signed. Even with these unfavorable rulings, there is ample Supreme Court precedent to support Congress’s regulating abortion through interstate commerce, as law professor Julian Mortenson outlines.

 

But there is another reason that Democrats in Congress may not want to codify Roe through legislation.

 

If the Supreme Court rules that Congress has the power to protect abortion through legislation, Congress also would have the power to prohibit abortion through legislation. As Chief Justice John Marshall famously concluded in an 1824 Commerce Clause case, the power to regulate necessarily includes the power to prohibit.

Ultimately, any victory for abortion rights the Democrats might claim with the WHPA would be temporary, lasting only until Republicans regained control.

 

Congress could also try rooting a statute in the 14th Amendment under its Article 5 power to pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce its guarantees. The problem is, Congress gets to “enforce” only those rights that exist under the Constitution. As the Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores, Congress doesn’t get to define those rights, which means Congress can’t use its 14th Amendment powers to reverse the Court. So they could try.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/can-congress-resurrect-roe-if-it-s-overturned-well-it-could-try/ar-AAWV8Ox?ocid=uxbndlbing

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Rockpile233 said:

My gripe is that we will have an election cycle dominated over something that a small minority care about, which will be blown out of proportion by the media further dividing.

 

But you obviously are one of those minority opinions that care deeply about abortion from a moral high ground perspective. In my circles if you are a minority opinion you follow and accept it, but we’ve had people crying about this for 50 years. Arrogance at it’s finest.

I actually agree with you the election cycle dominance thing...but that's exactly why a left leaning clerk leaked it. My wife constantly reminds me that many people care very deeply about this issue. I'm not one of them. But....I am in favor of letting the States make their own laws.  If the pro-life movement is indeed the minority that you claim, then just let the democratic process play itself out.  This isn't about arrogance. The Court is contemplating correcting their own wrong. Isn't that the exact opposite of arrogance?  As I've said in other posts....should the Court have said "what the heck, slavery's been around for years....we should probably let it stand."?  

[The Frankish Reich]

Everyone just needs to take a deep breath and think this through.

 

1. Consider Peter Singer, professional philosopher. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/young-case-against-peter-singer/4199120 He's argued that there may not be anything intrinsically/morally wrong about infanticide, particularly with severely disabled newborns. Most of us recoil in horror at this prospect.

 

2. Consider so-called partial birth abortion. Most of us recoil in horror at the idea that this "procedure" - call it what you like - would be allowed. (Let's set aside the idea that in many cases this is a non-viable fetus; let's just assume that at least in some cases it is)

 

3. Consider in vitro fertilization. Most of us think, "what a wonderful thing ... a couple that ordinarily cannot conceive can now share in the joy of having a child." My understanding is that the Mississippi "trigger law" would ban all (not just 15+ weeks) abortions. Consider that with in vitro fertilization it is typical to fertilize many eggs, then after a week or so to transplant just one or two (of many) embryos into the woman-host's uterus. https://nyulangone.org/locations/fertility-center/in-vitro-fertilization-egg-freezing-embryo-banking/in-vitro-fertilization (The "octomom" was a horrific exception.) The others? "Terminated." I assume Mississippi would make that illegal? And if it doesn't, why not? If terminating a potential human life is morally wrong, isn't that exactly what these embryologists are doing, in order to give life to one or two?

 

What I'm saying is that we all have our individual moral sense of where to draw the line. I don't know exactly where I draw it, but it isn't necessarily as late as "viability." And it certainly isn't so early as to outlaw in vitro fertilization. The Roman Catholic Church is ultra-consistent here: it's all wrong. Very few people go that far. Between Peter Singer and the Pope there's a lot of room. Who makes the choice? State legislatures? Well, I'm not real fond of most of them. Supreme Court Justices? Umm, same. Roe v Wade has been on thin ice for a long time because it really wasn't well-reasoned. But there's a core concept there that at some point the State (meaning the 50 states and/or the federal government) just has no business getting involved. That's why Roe grew out of Griswold, the contraception case. I would prefer a Supreme Court decision that affirms that basic principle of Roe (the "there's a zone of personal autonomy that the state ought to keep out of" - by the way, all of the vaccine "freedom to choose" people should agree in principle, since you are basically arguing the same point) while allowing more room for the states to make their own decisions about where to draw that line. It doesn't look like that's what we'll get, and that's why I don't like the direction Alito - a tone deaf originalist - is going in this draft opinion. Justice Alito, maybe it's your job to find the hidden meaning of the Ninth Amendment as well as of the rest of the constitution. (I admit I was heavily influenced by this book.) Maybe the final version will go more in a Roberts direction.

 

That would be a good thing.

Edited May 5, 2022 by The Frankish Reich

[Big Blitz]

2 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She is right - Bible thumper

[Big Blitz]

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

She is right - Bible thumper

 

 

 

In a week where the .....hold on a second......I still can't stop laughing...........in a week where we learned President CDC "purchased" your phone data to track you........hold on still laughing.........to track you and make sure you were behaving during..........hold on..........a government mandated lockdown......they suddenly think your privacy is gone if you can no longer terminate babies.....

 

Omg you can't draw the irony up any better then this freak show Democrat party can.   

[BillStime]

 

4 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

In a week where the .....hold on a second......I still can't stop laughing...........in a week where we learned President CDC "purchased" your phone data to track you........hold on still laughing.........to track you and make sure you were behaving during..........hold on..........a government mandated lockdown......they suddenly think your privacy is gone if you can no longer terminate babies.....

 

Omg you can't draw the irony up any better then this freak show Democrat party can.   

 

👆🤡 - wtf

 

What does your Bible say?

 

[Big Blitz]

12 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

👆🤡 - wtf

 

What does your Bible say?

 

 

 

In the last chapter it essentially says stuff like this will happen 

 

 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

In the last chapter it essentially says stuff like this will happen 

 

 

We know - you and the chit can only handle white straight males. 
 

Just like Maddy.

[Big Blitz]

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

We know - you and the chit can only handle white straight males. 
 

Just like Maddy.

 

 

What's a male?

[BillStime]

Just now, Big Blitz said:

 

 

What's a male?

Oh yOu knOw

[B-Man]

 

[Governor]

I like to win elections so I hope they overturn it quickly.

[Doc Brown]

9 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I actually agree with you the election cycle dominance thing...but that's exactly why a left leaning clerk leaked it. My wife constantly reminds me that many people care very deeply about this issue. I'm not one of them. But....I am in favor of letting the States make their own laws.  If the pro-life movement is indeed the minority that you claim, then just let the democratic process play itself out.  This isn't about arrogance. The Court is contemplating correcting their own wrong. Isn't that the exact opposite of arrogance?  As I've said in other posts....should the Court have said "what the heck, slavery's been around for years....we should probably let it stand."?  

The problem was the ruling in the first place.  Now the "trigger laws" in more conservative states that will immediately put abortion bans in place once RoeVWade is overturned.  The women most impacted by these laws will be poorer because they won't have as many resources to travel out of state for an abortion.  Short term at least this will lead to more single mother's qualifying for welfare benefits as they carried the baby because of the trigger laws (more burden on the tax payer) or an increase in back alley abortions in these states.  It would be nice if we had maybe a two year grace period where RvW is still the law of the land and then people can let their voices be heard through voting. 

[ALF]

Pro choice steps in like following

WE FUND TEXANS' TRAVEL TO ABORTION CLINICS

We provide travel assistance to Texas residents whether your appointment is in Texas or if you have to travel out-of-state. To those who qualify, we can help with:

Accommodation,We arrange and pay for hotel stays for folks who need to stay overnight in the city of their appointment(s). 
Transportation

https://fundtexaschoice.org/

 

Pro life can also help with adoptions , foster care , and birth control counseling.  Abortion will still be legal in many states if Roe/Wade is thrown out, matter of expense and travel.

 

They are putting a fence around the SC , had one around the Capitol , still around WH , but it doesn't work on southern border hmmm

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/massive-fence-supreme-court-abortion-draft

Edited May 5, 2022 by ALF

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

10 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

Ahhh Ben. The grifter so obvious that he doesn't actually debate the point about what would be effective, only to grouse about "personal responsibility" then remove the choice 

 

How do Shapiro fans string two sentences together?

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

Just as a note, does anyone refute that access to multiple forms of birth control, education on how to use it, and making it free would decrease abortion?

 

Because if no cost is too great to stop abortion, then what the hell are you complaining about? 

 

If it's personal responsibility, then let people make that choice.

 

Because right now you're a bunch of triggered snowflakes shouting THINK OF THE BABIES and then doing jack once you get your way.

[SoCal Deek]

15 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Just as a note, does anyone refute that access to multiple forms of birth control, education on how to use it, and making it free would decrease abortion?

 

Because if no cost is too great to stop abortion, then what the hell are you complaining about? 

 

If it's personal responsibility, then let people make that choice.

 

Because right now you're a bunch of triggered snowflakes shouting THINK OF THE BABIES and then doing jack once you get your way.

All good points. So when it comes a vote in your state please make sure you mention these things.

[BillStime]

Fool us once…

 

 

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

17 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

All good points. So when it comes a vote in your state please make sure you mention these things.

And if I am prosecuted under a different state for aid rendered to someone in a different state?

 

Because those #######s are trying it.